Accessibility (affaan-m) vs Accessibility (microsoft)
Two different Claude skills are both called Accessibility. Accessibility (affaan-m) and Accessibility (microsoft) install under the same name and do different jobs, which is exactly how the wrong one ends up running.
Accessibility
affaan-m/ecc
This tool inspects user interfaces against WCAG 2.2 Level AA and gives concrete checks and fixes for keyboard navigation, color contrast, and screen‑reader behavior. Unlike general accessibility guides, editor extensions, or chat-based assistants, it’s built for hands-on, change‑level audits and implementation guidance targeted specifically at WCAG 2.2 AA criteria rather than broad training or IDE integration.
1 scenario in the bank answer to it
Accessibility
microsoft/vscode
Offers tools inside the code editor to inspect and adjust the editor’s own accessibility behavior — things like toggling screen‑reader mode, examining the accessibility tree of editor UI, and checking keyboard focus and navigation in the IDE and its extensions. Unlike the WCAG/audit tools, it targets the editor’s UI and developer workflow rather than scanning websites for WCAG compliance or producing remediation for site content.
1 scenario in the bank answer to it
What is the difference between Accessibility (affaan-m) and Accessibility (microsoft)?
- Accessibility (affaan-m)
- This tool inspects user interfaces against WCAG 2.2 Level AA and gives concrete checks and fixes for keyboard navigation, color contrast, and screen‑reader behavior. Unlike general accessibility guides, editor extensions, or chat-based assistants, it’s built for hands-on, change‑level audits and implementation guidance targeted specifically at WCAG 2.2 AA criteria rather than broad training or IDE integration.
- Accessibility (microsoft)
- Offers tools inside the code editor to inspect and adjust the editor’s own accessibility behavior — things like toggling screen‑reader mode, examining the accessibility tree of editor UI, and checking keyboard focus and navigation in the IDE and its extensions. Unlike the WCAG/audit tools, it targets the editor’s UI and developer workflow rather than scanning websites for WCAG compliance or producing remediation for site content.
Should I use Accessibility (affaan-m) or Accessibility (microsoft)?
The clearest answer is a situation each one is unambiguously right for. Both of these are drawn from the game's question bank.
Reach for Accessibility (affaan-m) when
My client insists the site must meet a formal, narrowly defined set of accessibility success criteria from their audit; I need a hands‑on inspection that lists which specific criterion each failure maps to and gives concrete, implementation‑level fixes so engineers can close the exact compliance tickets.
accessibility-affaan-m is the right choice because it is built to inspect against a formal set of success criteria and produce hands‑on, criterion‑mapped checks with concrete fixes developers can apply to meet that audited standard. The most tempting wrong choice is accessibility-addyosmani — it also explains failures and gives step‑by‑step, code‑level remediation, but it’s focused on teaching remediation rather than acting as a strict, criterion‑mapped auditor or compliance checklist tool. accessibility-jezweb is tempting for clear, example‑based fixes, but it focuses on short pattern reviews and refuses to act as a full compliance scorer; accessibility-microsoft is irrelevant here because it targets accessibility of the development app/UI itself rather than auditing site content against a formal checklist.
Reach for Accessibility (microsoft) when
We shipped a VS Code extension and a blind developer says he cannot reach our sidebar panel with a keyboard at all. Nothing is wrong with our website; the problem is inside the editor.
Three of these audit web pages against WCAG; only one looks at the editor itself. accessibility (microsoft/vscode) inspects the editor's own accessibility tree, screen-reader mode and keyboard focus, which is exactly where an extension's sidebar lives. The affaan-m option is the tempting one because it is the thorough WCAG 2.2 AA auditor — but a WCAG audit of your website says nothing about whether your extension panel is reachable inside VS Code.
What they have in common
Both are filed under Accessibility, the axis along which they collide. That shared ground is what makes an agent pick between them on description alone — and what makes it pick wrong.
Nearby comparisons
Reading the difference is not the same as spotting it at speed. That is the game.
Today's session